Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.


Vol. 40 No. 7 · 5 April 2018

Search by issue:


Thanks to Eamon Duffy for pulling focus on seductus to point out that the pope’s sexualisation of error does not come from Jerome’s misogyny but crept in from elsewhere (Letters, 22 March). Catholic misogyny is indeed overdetermined; the barrel is now so full, there is a danger you will hit the wrong fish.

I don’t know if Jerome was more holy than nasty – or if there is a connection between the two – but he was not perfect. In his Hebrew Questions on Genesis he discussed God’s curse on Eve (the line now translated as ‘Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you’). He noted that in the Hebrew it was ‘And your turning shall be towards your husband,’ while Aquila translated it as ‘companionship’, and Symmachus as ‘desire’ or ‘passion’. Despite this weighing of conversio and appetitus Jerome went for neither, and conjured up sub potestate instead, rendering the line as ‘And you shall be under your husband’s power and he shall have dominion over thee’ (Douay-Rheims translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate). This wasn’t just an important statement about the place of women, it seems to be a poor translation, which has since dropped out of use.

Apologies, meanwhile, to Jeremy Gordon for my reliance on Christian commentators who relied, in their turn, on Strong’s Concordance. This lists 16 uses of arom, from the root ‘ur’, meaning ‘naked’, of which at least one (Hosea 2.3) is, as Gordon points out, adulterous and sexual, the rest not so much. The snake’s cunning is rendered by Strong as arum, from a different root, and thereby, as they say, hangs a tale. I am not sure why the snake would be described as ‘naked’ but Gordon’s gender-free interpretation of human creation is really lovely. I hope he is right.

Anne Enright
Sandycove, Co. Dublin

Anne Enright, like many others before her, identifies the fruit Eve eats as an apple. The Bible doesn’t mention apples, in fact, but describes the unnamed forbidden fruit as having no seeds. Portraying the forbidden fruit as an apple predates Milton and Renaissance art; it goes back to the translation by Jerome, which seems to pun on the dual meaning of malum (‘evil’ and ‘apple’) in Latin. The story is borrowed, dating back more than two thousand years before the Bible’s composition, and probably originated in southern Mesopotamia. A stone cylinder from about 2200 BCE depicts two seated figures, a tree and a serpent.

Basem Ra’ad

Conspicuous Absence

Eric Foner, in his review of Anne Bailey’s The Weeping Time, notes that the experience of slavery is ‘conspicuously absent’ from public representations of history (LRB, 22 March). It depends where you look. It’s far from absent in historical fiction, and especially in works of imaginative reconstruction aimed at the young. There are many titles, but Julius Lester’s Day of Tears (2005) was actually about the same slave auction that Bailey describes, when Pierce Butler sold his ‘assets’ to pay his debts. The rain came down as the sale began, and fell throughout. Lester tells the story as far as possible through the voices of the slaves, for whom the rain is ‘God’s tears’. Part-novel, part-play, Day of Tears lent itself to group reading aloud, and was used in schools to teach the history of slavery in an empathetic way. It would be interesting to know if it is still being read in schools, or if the move to protect pupils from painful topics – which has led to the sidelining of such wonderful novels as Paula Fox’s The Slave Dancer and Mildred Taylor’s Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry – has caught up with Lester too.

Norma Clarke
Kingston University

Eric Foner’s reference to the absence of slavery from the public representation of history in the US reminded me of a visit I made in the 1990s to the library of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. There was an excellent exhibition on the history of Louisiana agriculture. Excellent, that is, save for the complete omission of any reference to the fact that those tending, harvesting and processing the crops were slaves, or that they were the occupants of the workers’ accommodation shown on the plantation plans. I have ever since regretted that I didn’t have the courage to seek out the curator and ask for an explanation.

Dick Russell
Beenham, Berkshire

A Theory

Michael Neill’s recollection of his father playing Schubert’s Erlkönig on his old 78s reminded me of my father playing and singing this chilling song in the 1940s in Sheffield (LRB, 22 March). Never having seen anybody’s father riding a horse, I unconsciously assumed the father in the song was riding a bicycle (I had seen several doing this, though none of them carried a frantic child), and despite the absurdity of the image and the illustrative gallop of the piano accompaniment, I have never quite lost the sense of the presence of a bicycle. This has in no way lessened the impact of the music or the dramatic intensity of the words. Is this how incompatible notions such as ‘Brexit will set us free and make us rich’ or ‘The right to carry arms makes US citizens safe’ are formed and held?

John Bailey
St Albans, Hertfordshire

In Uladh

There have been a few developments since the publication of Susan McKay’s piece on Northern Ireland (LRB, 8 March). She mentions that the DUP had ‘made itself useful to the Conservatives, secretly using a loophole in the Northern Irish law on political donations to channel large sums into a mainland advertising campaign for Brexit in the run-up to the 2016 referendum’. On 5 March the Transparency of Donations & Loans (NI Political Parties) Order 2018 was approved after a vote in the House of Commons. As a result, details of donations and loans of £7500 or more will now be made public. However, the cut-off date was set at July 2017, so donations and loans made during the EU referendum campaign of 2016 will remain concealed. (We do know that these donations included £435,000 given to the DUP – and spent in support of the Leave campaign – by a group of pro-Union business people called the Constitutional Research Council.)

McKay writes that Arlene Foster wanted Northern Ireland to be ‘returned to direct rule from Westminster, and that Karen Bradley start paying out the £1 billion that Theresa May was forced to pledge last year in exchange for the DUP’s help in propping up her minority government’. On 8 March, Bradley announced that a new budget for Northern Ireland will include £410 million of that £1 billion. That will include £80 million for the relief of current pressures on health and education provision, £30 million to address issues of mental health and severe deprivation, and £100 million for the long-term transformation of the health service.

On 7 March, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster heard evidence from Simon Hamilton, a senior DUP Northern Ireland Assembly member who was involved in the party’s negotiations with Sinn Féin. He is seen as one of the DUP’s moderates and would be very likely to return to Stormont as a minister under devolution; his remarks can be taken as an ‘official’ stance. He told the committee he saw little prospect of Stormont returning this year and hinted that there may have to be changes to the Good Friday Agreement before it could happen at all. He insisted that his party was ideologically committed to devolution but that in the absence of Stormont there was an urgent need for direct-rule decisions since that would be ‘better than having no decisions taken at all’ in such areas as health and education.

James Grainger
Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire

A Woman’s Agency

Thank you to Jacqueline Rose for taking on the gnarly subject of sexual harassment (LRB, 22 February). Recently there has been a burst of truth-telling about systemic sexual harassment in New Zealand too, disrupting the mood of national self-congratulation at the country’s election of a young, progressive female prime minister who is pregnant with her first child. A top-echelon law firm has been outed for tolerating years of sexual harassment of student interns and young lawyers. It seems abuse of power is rife in some professional firms, where the partners are virtually untouchable thanks to their status and the money they bring in.

Rose makes one remark in particular that struck home with me. ‘It is scary,’ she writes, ‘though common enough historically, to witness the speed with which a progressive cause can become complicit with, or be co-opted by, a nasty political agenda … Women’s issues are only ever allowed to be the main event for the briefest possible interlude.’ When I was young and into Women’s Lib and consciousness-raising, we talked a lot about the threat of patriarchal backlash (denial, ridicule and punishment were the main weapons). There was c0-option too, and it fuelled doubt and divisiveness within the movement. Some big things were achieved, notably in legal statutes; a few glass ceilings were broken and girls’ education was improved. But conditioned behaviours and cultural norms have been a lot harder to shift, in the home and in the workplace.

I sometimes wonder if my generation of women, who were radicalised in the 1960s and 1970s, have failed younger generations. It rankles when I hear some younger women arrogantly rejecting what they take to be ‘feminism’, but more than that it makes me sad to see women today virtually back at square one, having to reinvent feminism by insisting all over again that ‘the personal is political,’ and exposing their own vulnerability in doing so. When women are the focus, that also makes them a target. Young women’s anger will make many uncomfortable, and we can anticipate a vigorous reaction from the establishment.

Belinda Meares
Motunau, New Zealand

When the Ice Melts

David Campbell writes to remind us of his view that global efforts to limit climate change by constraining carbon emissions are proving impotent in the face of China’s industrialisation (Letters, 8 March). Those who recall his piece in the LRB of 5 November 2015 will not be surprised that his answer to our failure so far to have done enough is that we should do less in future. Forget mitigation, he says. We should focus on adaptation instead.

In 2018 it should no longer be necessary to state that this a false choice. Mitigation and adaptation are no more fungible than are cause and effect. Some global temperature rise in the coming decades is now inevitable so adaptation will be needed – quite desperately in some parts of the world. But adaptation can only ever offer a partial and temporary response to the effects of climate change. Let’s imagine that the 145 million people living three feet or less above sea level could all be protected from the sea’s predicted encroachment by the end of this century. We will still need to adapt to more intense heatwaves, extreme rainfall events and hurricanes, and to the disruption to the world’s bread baskets, to the supply of water, and to the distribution of biological vectors of disease, with all the effects these things will have on human and animal populations. Are we to believe that such effects would be remotely manageable in a world where, without mitigation, warming was left to rise inexorably; not only past 2°C, but to 5, 6, even 7°C and beyond? It is a long-recognised moral hazard of overemphasising the utility of adaptation that it can deter action on tackling the root cause of climate change.

Jonathan Church
Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire

My great-uncle gave me a rifle

Eli Silberman writes of walking through Manhattan with a rifle in 1954 (LRB, 22 March). In 1959 for my 12th birthday my great-uncle gave me $50 to buy a rifle. I took the train from Long Island into Pennsylvania Station and walked across to Abercrombie & Fitch on Madison Avenue. In the gun department on the seventh floor I bought a new Remington .22 semi-automatic with a magazine capacity of 15 rounds. The salesman wrapped it up but I was so excited I unwrapped it on the train before walking home with it through the suburbs. Nobody seemed to notice.

Jack Rosenthal
Middleton, Suffolk

Brexit Blues

William Davies mentions the North, Wales and Northern Ireland but seems to have forgotten about the South-West (LRB, 8 March). Perhaps he doesn’t realise that the most recent Index of Deprivation rates Cornwall as the second poorest region in the whole of Northern Europe. According to recent figures, 17 neighbourhoods in Cornwall are among the 10 per cent most deprived in England. Our infrastructure is crumbling and central government appears to have few plans to make improvements or to drive significant business investment our way. It takes on average longer than five hours to get to London by rail from Truro. Newquay, the only airport, provides a limited service to the rest of the UK and Europe. The main industry is tourism – seasonal and weather-dependent. After Brexit, prospects for a revival of our fishing industry appear bleak. Thousands of new houses are being built, but where will people find meaningful work? I could go on.

Yvonne Bristow
St Just in Penwith, Cornwall

It isn’t clear whether it is William Davies or the German ambassador he cites who regards the UK’s wartime ‘national isolation’ as ‘vastly exaggerated’ in Churchill’s rhetoric. Either way, with Czechoslovakia swallowed, Poland conquered and divided, Holland, Denmark and Norway occupied, Italy newly declared a belligerent, Russia nominally allied with Germany, and the United States maintaining its isolationist stance, it would be hard to ‘exaggerate’ that isolation in June 1940, when France, Britain’s last remaining ally, capitulated to Germany.

Not that this has anything to do with Brexit. King George VI and Air Marshal Dowding may have heaved a sigh of relief when France sought peace terms from Germany, so sparing the sacrifice of any more fighter squadrons in a vain attempt to prop up French resistance, but the truth is that Britain was ‘better off alone’ in military terms, reasonably confident that the German air force and navy would be unable to mount an invasion.

You are entitled to bang on about Brexit: but try to keep it relevant.

David Elstein
London SW15

Dinosaurs among Us

In claiming that the dinosaurs are still with us in the form of birds, Rory Allen seems unaware of the headaches visited on cladistics whenever one of the branches of life gets reassigned, as in the case of birds (Letters, 8 March). They had already diverged from dinosaurs before the extinction of those impressive animals, and certainly didn’t evolve subsequently from the few dinosaurs that survived. Not only had they ceased to be dinosaurs, they, more awkwardly, managed to disassociate themselves from the whole class of reptiles, a grouping previously considered monophyletic. But when birds were discovered in the late 1960s to have originated from some of the smaller and nimbler therapod raptors, all that went up in the air, so to speak.

Thomas Westcott
London SE1

No New Yorker will forget

James Graham writes to correct me: Lillian Hellman’s libel suit against Mary McCarthy began with a remark made by the latter not ‘about’ the Dick Cavett television show but ‘on’ it (Letters, 22 March). Actually I wrote ‘on’: the editors introduced the mistake. I wasn’t likely to get this wrong, as I watched the programme when it was first aired, and gasped as McCarthy said that every word Hellman wrote was a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’. I remember thinking, ‘She’s going to get in a lot of trouble,’ and so it proved. McCarthy faced bankruptcy because of the suit and, wanting to help, I asked the editor of the magazine I then worked for: ‘What if all the papers got together and printed the remark? Hellman couldn’t sue everybody.’ He said no, because ‘everyone is afraid of Lillian, and nobody likes Mary.’

Rhoda Koenig
London SW2

Bizarre Fossils

It shouldn’t in any way detract from the contribution made by Simon Conway Morris to point out that he didn’t, as Steven Rose puts it, ‘uncover’ the ‘bizarre fossils’ in the Burgess Shale (LRB, 22 March). That was the work of Charles Doolittle Walcott. Conway Morris’s doctoral supervisor, Harry Whittington, ‘discovered’ the fossils later in a drawer, probably in the Smithsonian, and passed them on to his student for analysis.

Jim Provan
Aberystwyth University

Such a Solecism

In his long, detailed account of Nancy Cunard, David Ollier Weber refers to her mother as Lady Emerald Cunard (Letters, 22 February). It mystifies me that over and over again scholars, researchers and writers are able to unearth fascinating facts from obscure sources about people with titles yet never ever seem to do even the tiniest bit of research on those titles to get them right. Lord knows Debrett’s isn’t hard to consult. Lady Cunard could never be Lady Emerald unless she was born the daughter of an earl, a marquess or a duke. She is no more Lady Emerald than I am Lady Polly. If you marry a Viscount Blank, Lord Blank, Sir Thomas Blank, you take his surname: Lady Blank. So simple to look up and such a solecism, never mind atavistic.

Polly Devlin
London W4

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.